Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED377989: Ten Myths about Spanking Children."

See other formats


DOCUMENT 'RESUME 



ED 377 989 PS 022 959 

AUTHOR Straus, Murray A, 

TITLE Ten Myths about Spanking Children, 

INSTITUTION New Hampshire Univ., Durham, Family Research Lab* 

SPONS AGENCY National Inst, of Mental Health (DHEW) , Rockville, 

Md.; New Hampshire Univ., Durham. 
UjUB DATE 94 
CONTRACT NIMH-T32-MH15161 
NOTE 17p. 

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) — Viewpoints 

(Opinion/Position Papers , Essays , etc.) (120) 

EDRS PRICE MFOi/PCOl Plus Postage. 

DESCRIPTORS *Behavior Problems; *Beliefs; Child Behavior; Child 

Rearing; ^Corporal Punishment; Cultural influences; 
Vf Discipl ine; Parent Attitudes ; Parent Child 
Relat ionship 

IDENTIFIERS Disciplinary Styles 

ABSTRACT 

One of a series of studies on corporal punishment of 
children, this paper argues that the reasons provided for the strong 
support of spanking are myths. Ten myths about spanking children are 
discussed by offering arguments that support the action and by 
quoting findings from studies that refute the arguments. The ten 
myths are: (1} spanking works better than other methods; (2) spanking 
is needed as a last resort; (3) spanking is harmless; (4) one or two 
instances will not cause damage; (5) parents cannot stop unless they 
get training in alternatives; (6) without spanking, children will be 
spoiled or run wild; (7) parents do it only rarely or only for 
serious problems; (8) parents stop spanking by the time a child is a 
teenager; (9) if parents do not spank, they will verbally abuse a 
child; and (10) it is unrealistic to expect parents never to spank. 
The paper notes that while some of these myths are about the 
effectiveness of spanking, others are about the harmlessness of 
spanking. The paper then suggests some of the reasons for the 
persistence of these two types of myths. The central reason for the 
first type of myth is "selective inattention," whereby people do not 
pay attention to or remember the times when spanking fails to work 
because doing so contradicts what they believe to be true. That is, 
people have a vested interest in believing that their parents were 
correct. This, in turn, raises the question why most Americans defend 
spanking, and several reasons are offered for it. The two important 
reasons for the second type of myth are that the harmful effects do 
not become visible right awaj and that only a small percentage of 
spanked children experience obviously harmful effects. The paper 
concludes by noting that although the principle of respect for 
minority rights and family privacy conflict with the principle that 
it is wrong to treat children in ways that might threaten their 
physical and mental health, there is enough evidence to seek an 
accommodation between our commitment to individual freedom and our 
commitment to the well-being of children and of society. Contains 30 
references . (BAC) 



Modified version to be in Murray A. Straus, 1994. 
Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment 
in American Families and Its Effects on Children . 
Lexington Books . 



o> 

00 

o> 

CO 

Q 
LU 



U.S. (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Off»ce of Educaiionai Rewoicn and improvement 

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 

CENTER <£RlC) 
XTn»s documeni has been reproduced as 
deceived I'Ofn ihe person or organization 
Originating it 

C Minor changes have been made 10 improve 
reproduction quality 

• Points ol view or opinions stated m this docu 
men* do not necessarily represent oH'Ciai 
OERi position or policy 



TEN MYTHS ABOUT SPANKING CHILDREN 



Murray A. Straus 

Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire 
Durham, NH 03824 (603) 862-2594 



Myth 1. SPANKING WORKS BETTER THAN OTHER METHODS 2 

Myth 2. SPANKING IS NEEDED AS A LAST RESORT 4 

Myth 3. SPANKING IS HARMLESS: I WAS SPANKED AND I'M OK 4 

Myth 4. ONE OR TWO INSTANCES ARE NOT GOING TO CAUSE ANY DAMAGE 6 

Myth 5. PARENTS CAN'T STOP UNLESS THEY GET TRAINING IN ALTERNATIVES ... 7 

Myth 6. IF YOU CAN'T SPANK, CHILDREN WILL BE SPOILED, RUN WILD, ETC. . . 8 

Myth 7. PARENTS DO IT ONLY RARELY OR ONLY FOR SERIOUS PROBLEMS 9 

Myth 8. BY THE TIME A CHILD IS A TEENAGER, PARENTS HAVE STOPPED 10 

Myth 9. IF PARENTS DON'T SPANK THEY WILL VERBALLY* ABUSE A CHILD 10 

Myth 10. IT IS UNREALISTIC TO EXPECT PARENTS TO NEVER SPANK 10 

WHY DO THESE MYTHS PERSIST? H 

CULTURAL RIGHTS AND FAMILY PRIVACY 13 

REFERENCES * 4 

FIGURES 16 



01 



This paper Is one of a series of studies of corporal punishment of children 
conducted at the Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. A list 
of publications on corporal punishment is available on request. The research is 
supported by NIMH grant T32 MH15161 and by the University of New Hampshire. I 
would like to thank Carrie Yodanis for her exceptional skill in work on the 
statistical analysis and for her valuable comments on an earlier draft. The 
paper also benefitted from comments and suggestions by members of the 1992 Family 
Violence Research Seminar. 



PERMISSION 10 REPRODUCE THIS 
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 



TO THE tU'JOATiONAL BESOUHCt:. 
INFORMATION CENTER iEHlO 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 1 



ERIC 



2 

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 



The laws of every state of the United States permit parents to hit children 
for purposes of correction or control. Eighty four percent of a national sample 
of Americans agreed with the statement that H It is sometimes necessary to give 
a child a good hard spanking. M Study a.:ter study shows that almost 100X of 
parents of toddlers use spanking and other kinds of "corporal punishment" or 
"physical punishment." There are many reasons for the strong support of 
spanking, but most of them are myths. 

Most parents use the word "spanking" for more than just hitting the child 
on the buttocks. They use it to refer to all hitting of a child, such as 
slapping the hand of a child who touches something forbidden, or slapping the 
face of a child who talks back or calls the parent a name. I will also use it 
in that more general sense, except where it really does not fit. For example, 
teens are often slapped, but they are rarely spanked on the buttocks, so when 
talking about teenagers I will refer to it as corporal punishment or as hitting. 



Myth 1 

SPANKING WORKS BETTER THAN OTHER METHODS 



there has been a hug-3 amount of research on the effectiveness of corporal 
punishment of animals . but remarkably little on the effectiveness of spanking 
children . That may be because almost everyone assumes that spanking is effective 
and therefore they don't feel a need to study it. In fact, what little research 
there is on children agrees with the research on animals in finding that spanking 
is not more effective than other modes of correcting misbehavior, and there are 
some studies that show it is less effective. 



Ellen Cohn and I studied 270 students at two New England colleges. We asked 
them to tell us about the year they experienced the most corporal punishment. 
Their average age that year was eight, and they recalled having been hit an 
average, of six times that year. Next we asked them about the percent of the time 
that the corporal punishment was effective. It averaged just over half of the 
times (53%), which also means that corporal punishment was not effective almost 
half the time it was used. 



Day and Roberts (1983) did an experiment on three year old children given 
"time out." Half of the mothers were assigned to use spanking as the mode of 
correction if the child did not comply with "time out" and left the time out 
place (sitting in a corner). The other half put the child who did not comply 
behind a low plywood barrier and physically enforced the child staying there. 
Keeping the child in the barrier area was just as effective as the spanking in 
correcting the misbehavior that led to the time out. A longitudinal study by 
Larzelere (in press) also found that a combination of non corporal punishment and 
re isoning was as effects as corporal punishment and reasoning in correcting 
disobedience. 



Crozier and Katz (1979), Patterson (1982) and Webster Stratton et al. (1988, 
1990) all studied children with serious conduct problems . Part of the treatment 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993 l Page 2 



ERLC 



used in all three experiments was to get parents to stop spanking. In all three, 
the behavior of the children improved after spanking ended. Of course, "many 
other things were part of the intervention in addition to avoiding spanking. But, 
as will be shown below, parents who on their own accord do not spank, also do 
lots of other things. It is these "other things, H such as clear standards for 
what is expected, lots of love and affection, explaining things to the child, and 
recognizing and rewarding good behavior, that account for why children of parents 
who do not spank tend to be easy to manage and well behaved. What about parents 
who do these things and also spank? Those children also tend to be well behaved, 
but it is illogical to attribute that to the spanking since the same or better 
results are achieved without the spanking, and also without the adverse side 
effects described below. 

Such experiments are extremely important and more experiments are needed to 
really understand what is going on when parents spank. However, results like 
those of Day and Roberts can be observed in almost any household. Lets take two 
examples . 

In a typical American family there are many instances when a parent says 
H Mary! You did that againl I am going to have to send you to your room again. H 
This would be one of many examples of a non-spanking method that did not work. 

The second example is similar: A parent says something like H Maryl You did 
that againl I'm going to have to spank you again. " This would be one of many 
examples of spanking that did not work. 

The difference between these two examples is that when spanking does not 
work parents tend to forget it because it contradicts the almost universal 
American belief that spanking is something that works when all else fails. 
Conversely, they tend to remember when a non- spanking method did not work. The 
reality is that nothing works all the time with a toddler. 

Parents who favor spanking can turn this around and ask "If spanking doesn't 
work any better, isn't that the same as saying that it works just as well?. So 
what is wrong with a quick slap on the wrist or bottom?" There are at least 
three things that are wxong: 

* Spanking becomes less and less effective over time, and 

eventually becomes physically impossible 

* For some children, the lessons learned through spanking include 

the idea that they only need to be good if mommy or daddy is 
watching or will know about it 

* There are a number of very harmful side effects for example, 

a higher probability that the child will grow up to be 
depressed or violent. Parents can't perceive these side 
effects because they only show up in the long run. 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 3 



Myth 2 



SPANKING IS NEEDED AS A LAST RESORT 

Even parents and social scientists who are opposed to spanking tend to think 
that it may be needed when all else fails. There is no scientific evidence 
supporting this belief. It is a myth that grows out of our cultural and 
psychological commitment to corporal punishment. You can prove this to yourself 
by a simple exercise with two other people. Each of the three should, in turn, 
think of the most extreme situation where spanking is necessary. The other two 
should try to think of alternatives. It is very difficult to come up with a 
situation for which the alternatives were not as good, and usually better, than 
spanking. 

Take the example of a child running out into the street. Almost everyone 
thinks that spanking is appropriate because of the extreme danger. Although 
spanking in that situation may help parents to relieve their own tension and 
anxiety, it is not necessary or appropriate for teaching the child. It is not 
necessary because, spanking does not work better than other methods, and it is 
not appropriate because of the harmful side effects of spanking. The only 
physical force needed is to grab the child and get him/her out of danger. 

Ironically, if spanking is to be done at all, the "last resort" may be the 
worst time. The problem is that parents are usually very angry by that time and 
act impulsively. Because of the high anger, if the child rebels and calls the 
parent a name or kicks the parent, the episode can escalate into physical abuse. 
Indeed, most episodes of physical abuse started as physical punishment and got 
out of hand (Kadushin and Martin, 1981). Of course, the reverse is not true, 
i.e., most instances of spanking do not escalate into abuse, Still, the danger 
is there. 

The second problem with spanking as a last resort is that, in addition to 
teaching that hitting is the way to correct wrongs, doing so impulsively teaches 
another wrong lesson namely that being extremely angry and "beyond yourself" 
justifies hitting. - 

Myth 3 

SPANKING IS HARMLESS: I WAS SPANKED AND I'M OK 

When someone says "I was spanked and I'm ok," they are arguing that spanking 
is not harmful. This is contrary to almost all the available research. One 
reason the harmful effects are ignored is because most of the harmful effects do 
not become visible right away, often not for years. Even m >re important is the 
fact that only a relatively small percentage of spanked children experience 
obviously harmful effects. 

The delayed reaction and the small proportion seriously hurt are the same 
reasons why the harmful effects of smoking were not perceived for centuries. In 
the case of smoking, the research shows that a third of very heavy smokers die 
of lung cancer or some other smoking induced disease. That, of course, means 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 4 



that two thirds of heavy smokers do not die of these diseases (Mattson et al. , 
1987), So most heavy smokers can say "I've smoked more than a- pack- a- day for 
thirty years and I'm ok.* Similarly, most people who were spanked can say "My 
parents spanked me, and I'm not a wife beater or depressed. 

Another argument in defense of spanking is that it is not harmful if the 
parents are loving and explain why they are spanking. The research does show 
that the harmful effects of spanking are reduced if it occurs in a context of a 
loving family in which parents explain their actions. However, although the 
harmful effects are reduced, a study by Larzelere (1986) and my own research 
(Straus and Gimpel, 1992) show that they are not eliminated. Let us look at 
three of the harmful side effects of spanking. 



Aggression 

Even in a loving context, and perhaps even more in such a context, spanking 
teaches that hitting others is morally correct. Of course, it is only correct 
if the other person is doing something seriously wrong and won't stop. The irony 
of this can be seen by examining the circumstances under which a child hits 
another child. It is very rare for a child to simply walk up to another child 
and hit him or her. Rather, children hit other children when the other child is 
doing something that they think is seriously wrong such as "squirting water 
on me" and refusing to stop, or "taking my doll" and not giving it back. So it 
is no wonder that hitting a child for misbehavior increases the probability the 
child will hit siblings and other children (Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz, 1980). 
They are faithfully following the rules learned from the example of their 
parents' behavior. When the child grows up, spanked children tend to spank their 
own children, which is hardly surprising. What may be surprising is Figure 1 
(from Straus, 1991). It shows that they also have a higher rate of hitting their 
spouse. However, it should not be surprising because spouses may also 
"misbehave" and "not listen to reason." Other findings from the same study show 
that the more a child is spanked, the greater the probability that he or she will 
assault someone outside their family. 

(Figure 1 about here) 

Difficult To Control Children 

One of the most important side effects is that corporal punishment makes it 
more difficult for parents to influence a child later on, especially in 
adolescence. This is partly because in adolescence, children become too big to 
control by physical force, but also because each use of spanking chips away at 
the bond between parent and child and children are more likely to do what the 
parents want if there is a strong bond of affection with the parents (Hirschi, 
1969). 

Ellen Cohn and I asked the 270 students mentioned earlier to tell us about 
their reactions to "the first time you can remember being hit by one of your 
parents" and the most recent instance. We used a check list of 33 items, one of 
which was "hated him or her." That item was checked by 42X for the first 
instance of corporal punishment they could remember and by the same percentage 



CPll\CPll.?,4Marchl993, Page 5 



for the most recent Incident. The large percent who hated their parents for 
hitting theni Is important because it is evidence that use of corporal punishment 
does chip away at the bond between child and parert. 

Contrary to the "spoiled chlld M myth (see below), children of non-spanking 
parents tend to control their behavior on the basis of what is right and wrong 
rather than to avoid being hit. This means that if parents avoid spanking, they 
are likely to have children who are easier to manage and better behaved (see 
Figure 4, from Sears et al., 1957). That is ironic because almost everyone 
thinks that the opposite is the case. 



Depression. Alienation. And Achievement 

Research on the women and men in the National Family Violence Surveys finds 
that the more corporal punishment experienced, the greater the probability of 
being depressed and the greater the probability of having thought about 
committing suicide (Straus, 1993) during the 12 months preceding the interview. 
Another analysis found that tl e more corporal punishment experienced, the greater 
the alienation; and, holding constant social class of origin, the lower the 
occupational and economic achievement (Straus andGimpel, 1992), I interpret the 
lowered occupational and economic achievement as one of the consequences of the 
higher rate of depression and alienation associated with corporal punishment. 

Myth 4 

ONE OR TWO INSTANCES ARE NOT GOING TO CAUSE ANY DAMAGE. 

(Figure 2 about here) 

The evidence does indeed indicate that the greatest risk of harmful effects 
occurs when spanking is very frequent. However, that does not necessarily mean 
that just once or twice is harmless. Unfortunately, the hypothesis that even 
once or twice increases the probability of psychological damage is not addressed 
by most of the available research. This is because the studies seem to be based 
on this myth. They group children into H low" and "high" frequency of having been 
hit, thus preventing the "once or twice is harmless" myth from being tested 
scientifically because the "low" group may include parents who spank as often as 
once a month. However, the few studies that did classify children according to 
the number of times they experienced corporal punishment, are illustrated by 
Figure 2 (from Straus, 1992). Both show that even one or two instances are 
associated with a higher number of depressive symptoms later in life, although 
only slightly more. The increase in harmful side effects such as depression may 
be small, but there is no need to run even that small risk because of the 
evidence that corporal punishment is no more effective than other forms of 
discipline in the short run, and is less effective in the long run. 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Fage 6 



Myth 5 



PARENTS CAN'T STOP UNLESS THEY GET TRAINING IN ALTERNATIVES 

Although everyone can use additional skills in child management, there is 
absolutely no evidence showing that it takes some extraordinary training to be 
able to stop spanking. The most basic step in eliminating corporal punishment 
is for parent educators, psychologists, and pediatricians, to make a simple and 
unambiguous statement that hitting a child is wrong and that a child should never 
be hit. That is, just as we tell children to never hit another child, parents 
need to be told to never hit their own child never, ever, under any 
circumstances . 

Almost without exception that idea has been rejected. Parent educators and 
social scientists I have talked to argue that it would turn off parents and it 
could be harmful because parent don't know what else to do. They say that 
parents need to learn alternative modes of discipline before we can withdraw use 
of spanking. That may be true for some incompetent parents and, as I said, all 
parents can b3refit from more skills in child management. So parent eduction 
programs such as The Nurturing Program (Bavolek, 1983 to 1992), STEP (Dinkmeyer 
and McKay, 1989), Parent Effectiveness Training (Gordon, 1975), Effective Black 
Parenting (Alvy, and Marigna, 1987), and Los Ninos Bien Educado Program (Tannatt 
and Alvy, 1989) can help . everyone. However, even without such programs, most 
parents already use a wide range of non-spanking methods, such as explaining, 
reasoning, and rewarding. The problem is that they also spank. Given the fact 
that parents already know and use many methods of teaching and controlling, the 
solution is amazingly simple. In most cases, parents can do just what they were 
doing to correct the misbehavior, but leave out the spanking! 

This can be illustrated by again using the situation that almost everyone 
thinks requires spanking: a toddler that runs out into the street. In that 
situation, a typical parent will scream in terror, rush out and grab the child, 
and run to safety telling the child H No! No! H and explaining the danger -- all 
of this accompanied by one or more slaps to the legs or behind. 

The s.ime sequence is as effective or more effective without the spanking . 
The spanking part is not needed because even tiny children can sense the terror 
in the parent and do understand "No! No! H Just-born infants can tell the 
difference between when a mother is anxious and when she is tense (Stern, 1977). 
Nevertheless, the fact that a child understands that something is wrong does not 
guarantee never again running into the street; just as spanking does not 
guarantee the child will not run into the street again. 

If the child runs out again parents who don't spank should do what parents 
who spank do. They spank again --'as many times as necessary until the child 
learns. In the meantime, they monitor the child, hold the child's hand, and take 
whatever other means are needed to protect the child. Just as parents who spank 
have to be ready to repeat the process until the child learns, the same applies 
to parents who omit the spanking. The difference is that when non spanking 
methods do not work, parents tend to quickly turn to spanking because they 
believe it is more effective; whereas when spanking does not work, parents do not 
question its effectiveness. They keep on spanking until it does work* 

CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 7 



8 



Of course, most parents who spank do more than just repeat the spanking or 
spank harder. They usually also do things such as explain the danger to the 
^'nlld before letting the child go out again, warn the child that If it happens 
again, they will have to stay In the house for the afternoon, etc. The irony is 
that when the child finally does learn, they attribute the success to the 
spanking part of what they have done! 



Myth 6 

IF YOU CAN'T SPANK, CHILDREN WILL BE SPOILED, RUN WILD, ETC. 

It is true that some non- spanked children turn out to be problems, but when 
this happens it Is not because the parent didn't spank. It is because some 
parents think that the alternative to spanking is to ignore a child's 
misbehavior, or to replace spanking with verbal attacks such as "Only a dummy 
like you can't learn to keep your toys where I won't trip over them." The real 
alternative is to take firm action to correct the misbehavior, but not by 
spanking. Just firmly condemning what the child has done and explaining why it 
is wrong is usually enough. 

Suppose the child hits another child. Parents need to express outrage at 
this or the child may think it is acceptable behavior. The expression of outrage 
and a clear statement about never hitting another person will do the trick in 
most cases. That does not mean one such admonition will do the trick, any more 
than a single spanking will do the trick. It takes most children a while to 
learn such things, whatever the methods the parents use. 

(Figure 3 about here) 

The importance of how parents go about teaching children is clear from the 
classic study of American parenting, Patterns of Child Rearing (Sears, Maccoby, 
and Levin, 1957). This study found two actions by parents that are linked to a 
high level of aggression by the child: Permissiveness of the child's aggression, 
i.e. ignoring it when the child hits another child, and spanking to correct 
misbehavior. The most aggressive children in Figure 3 are those at the upper 
right. They are children of parents who permitted aggression by the child and 
who also spanked. The least aggressive children are at the lower left. They are 
children of parents whose parents clearly condemned acts of aggression, and who 
by not spanking, acted in a way that exemplified the principle that hitting is 
wrong . 

(Figure 4 about here) 

There are other reasons why, on the average, the children of parents who do 
not spank are better behaved than children of parents who spank. Non- spanking 
parents tend to: 



CFll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 8 



ERLC 



9 



* Pay more attention to their children's behavior , both good and bad, than 

do parents who spank. Consequently they are more likely to reward 
good behavior and less likely to ignore misbehavior 

* Do more explaining and reasoning. This teaches the child how to use these 

essential tools to monitor their own behavior, whereas children who 
are spanked get less training in thinking things through 

* Treat the child in ways that tend to bond the child to them and avoid 

acts that weaken the bond, including 

More rewarding of good behavior 
Greater warmth and affection 

Less verbal assaults on the child (see Myth 9) 

By not spanking, they avoid anger and resentment over spanking 

When there is a strong bond, children identify with the parent and 
want to avoid doing things the parent says are wrong. This amounts to 
the child developing a conscience and letting that direct his/her 
behavior. That is exactly what Sears et al. found (see Figure 4). 



Myth 7 

PARENTS DO IT ONLY RARELY OR ONLY FOR SERIOUS PROBLEMS 

Contrary to this myth, parents who spank tend to use this method of 
discipline for almost any misbehavior. Many do not even give the child a 
warning. They spank before trying other things. And some advocates of spanking 
recommend this. At any supermarket or other public place, one can see examples 
of a child doing something wrong, such as taking a can of food off the shelf. The 
parent then slaps the child* s hand and puts the can back, sometimes without 
saying anything to the child. John Rosemond, the author of Parent Power (1981) 
says "For me spanking is a first resort. I seldom spank, but when I decide... I 
do it and that's the end of it." 

The high frequency of spanking also shows up among the 4,375 parents in the 
National Family Violence Surveys (Gelles and Straus, 1988; Straus and Gelles, 
1990). Over 90% of those who had toddlers at home used some form of corporal 
punishment during the preceding 12 months. The typical parent told us of about 
15 instances in which they had hit the child during the previous twelve months. 
That is surely a minimum estimate because spanking a child is such a routine and 
unremarkable event that many instances are forgotten. Other studies report even 
more chronic reliance on corporal punishment (Newson and Newson, 1963). Daily 
spanking is not at all uncommon. 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 9 



ERLC 



.10 



Myth 8 

BY THE TIME A CHILD IS A TEENAGER, PARENTS HAVE STOPPED 

Parents of children in their early teens are also heavy users of corporal 
punishment, although at that age it is more likely to be a slap on the face than 
on the behind. Over half of the parents of 13 year old children in our two 
national surveys hit the child in the previous 12 months. The percentage drops 
each year, but even at age 17, one out of five parents are still using corporal 
punishment. 

Of the parents of teenagers who told us about using corporal punishment, 84% 
did it more than once in the previous 12 months. For boys, the average was seven 
times and for girls, five times. These are also minimum figures because we 
interviewed the mother in half the families and the father In the other half. The 
number of times would be greater if we had information on what the non- 
interviewed parent did. ~\, 



Myth 9 

IF PARENTS DON'T SPANK THEY WILL VERBALLY ABUSE A CHILD 

The evidence from research Is exactly the opposite. The National Family 
Violence Surveys (Straus and Gelles, 1990) included information on verbal abuse 
by over 4,000 parents. The parents who did the least spanking also engaged in 
the least verbal aggression. 

It has to be pointed out that non-spanking parents are an exceptional 
minority. They are defying the cultural prescription which says that a good 
parent should spank "if necessary." The depth of their involvement with their 
children probably results from the same underlying characteristics that led them 
to reject spanking. There is a danger that if more ordinary parents are told to 
never spank, they might replace spanking by ignoring misbehavior or by verbal 
attacks. Consequently, a campaign to end spanking must also stress the importance 
of avoiding verbal attacks as well as physical attacks while also not ignoring 
misbehavior. 



9 

ERLC 



Myth 10 

IT IS UNREALISTIC TO EXPECT PARENTS TO NEVER SPANK 

It is no more (and no less) unrealistic to expect parents to never hit a 
child than to expect that husbands should never hit their wives, or that no one 
should go through a stop sign, or that supervisors should never hit employees. 
Despite the legal prohibition, some husbands hit their wives, just as some 
drivers go through stop signs and some supervisors hit an employee. 

If we were to prohibit spanking, as is the law L Sweden (Deley, 1988; 
Haeuser, 1990), there would be parents who nevertheless continue to spank, but 
that is no more reason to not have such a law than the fact that some husbands 

CPll\CPll.P,AMarchl993, Page 10 



n 



continue to hit their wives more than a century after the courts stopped 
recognizing the common law right of a husband to "physically chastise an errant 
wife" (Calvert, 1974). 

What it boils down to is that a prohibition on. spanking children is 
unrealistic only because spanking is such an accepted part of our culture. That 
was also true of smoking. Yet in less than a generation we made tremendous 
progress in eliminating smoking. We can make similar progress in eliminating 
spanking by showing parents that spanking is dangerous, that their children will 
be easier to bring up if they do not spank, and by clearly saying that a child 
should never . under any circumstances, be spanked. 

WHY DO THESE MYTHS PERSIST? 

Some of the myths are about the effectiveness of spanking and some are about 
the harmlessness of spanking. I will conclude by suggesting some of the reasons 
for the persistence of these two types of myths. 

The Myth of Effectiveness 

There are a number of reasons why almost everyone overestimates the 
effectiveness of spanking, but a central reason is what has been called 
"selective inattention." Selective inattention occurs when people do not pay 
attention to or remember the times when spanking fails to work because it 
contradicts what they believe to be true, i.e. , that spanking always works, thus 
providing the "evidence" that spanking always works. Conversely, if someone 
knows that the parents do not spank, it is assumed that the child "must be" 
spoiled, wild, etc. So there is a tendency to overlook the good behavior of the 
child, and to attribute the inevitable instances of misbehavior to the lack of 
spanking, thus providing the "evidence" that parents who don f t spank "when 
necessary" have spoiled children. These all- too-human errors in information 
rocessing create the perception that spanking is much more effective than it 
really is and are probably ths main reason for the persistence of the 
effectiveness myth. The reality is that although all children misbehave, the 
behavior of non- spanked children, although far from perfect they are after 
all, children is on the average better than the behavior of children whose 
parents spank. 

The selective inattention raises the question of why the "necessity" of 
spanking is such a deeply held belief. Why do most Americans have a vested 
interest in defending spanking? The following are some of the possible reasons. 

Almost all have been spanked as children, so it is part of their normal 
life experience. 

Even if someone is suffering from one of the harmful side effects r*\ch as 
depression, they do not realize that having been spanked may be one of 
the reasons for their depression and they can continue to believe that 
spanking is harmless. 

CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 11 



12 



Almost all parents use spanking on toddlers* Consequently, if someone who 
Is or has been a parent accepts the Idea that spanking is wrong, it 
implies that they have been a bad parent, at least in that respect. 
That is difficult to admit. 

Almost everyone has been hit by their parents. Consequently, to say that 
this was wrong is to condemn one's own parents. That is also something 
that few people are comfortable doing. 

These beliefs and attitudes have been crystallized as part of American 
culture and the American view of what a good parent owes to a child. 
There is abundant evidence that people tend to misperceive things that 
are contrary to basic tenants of their culture and beliefs (Higgins 
and largh, 1987). 

Most spanking occurs when parents are frustrated and angry. In that 
context parents tend to get emotional release and satisfaction from 
spanking which is confused with effectiveness in changing the child's 
behavior . 

There is almost always a "kernel of truth" behind myths and stereotypes , 
The belief in the efficacy of spanking is no excepticr. The truth is that some 
parents who do not spank also do not attempt to correct misbehavior. As 
explained earlier, children of these extremely permissive or neglectful parents 
do tend to be out-of -control. However, such parents are a minority of non- 
spanking parents. Their children do tend to be difficult to deal with, or 
sometimes even to be in the same room with, and these few instances are burned 
into memory. 



The Mvth of Harmlessness 

Probably the most important reasons for the myth of harmlessness are first, 
because the harmful effects do not become visible right away, often not for 
years; and second, because only a relatively small percentage of spanked children 
experience obviously harmful effects. 

It is now widely accepted that smoking causes lung cancer, buc that fact was 
hotly disputed only a generation ago. The research on spanking children is about 
where the research on smoking was generation ago, namely the studies shows that 
spanking is associated with delinquency, wife beating, depression and other 
problems later in life, but the evidence is not conclusive. So those favoring 
spanking can dismiss it, just as those favoring smoking dismissed the early 
evidence, which was also not conclusive. 

When conclusive evidence on the harmful effects of spanking does become 
available, it may be harder to get people to give up spanking than it was to give 
up smoking. Spanking may be more firmly entrenched because almost everyone was 
spanked or is a spanker, but not everyone was a smoker. 

Another reason spanking will be hard to eliminate is because the chance of 
falling victim to one of the harmful effects of spanking is much lower than the 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 12 



risk of experiencing the harmful effects of smoking. For example, Figure 4 shows 
that spanked children are about four times more likely to be highly aggressive 
and Figure 1 shows that frequently spanked children are about two and a half 
times more likely to hit their spouse later in life. The effects of smoking are 
much greater. A high rate of smoking tends to increase the chances of lung 
cancer by 34 times, even though two thirds of very heavy smokers do not die of 
a smoking related disease (Mattson et al. , 1987). 

Since spanking is associated with a two to four times greater rate of 
harmful behavior, whereas smoking increases the lung cancer rate by 34 times, it 
can be argued that smoking is a much more serious problem, However, it can also 
be argued that spanking is the mora serious problem because almost all parents 
spank, and spanking therefore puts more people at risk of harm. 

There is no need to decide if spanking is worse than smoking. Both are 
harmful, both need to be eliminated, and both can be eliminated. In the case of 
spanking, even though it may increase the probability of harm "only" three or 
four times, that is three or four times too many because it is an unnecessary 
risk; especially since children are more likely to be well behaved without 
spanking. 

CULTURAL RIGHTS AND FAMILY PRIVACY 

If it is true that research on spanking is now about where the research on 
smoking was a generation ago, it can be argued that a concerted effort to end 
spanking amounts to imposing the unproven values of one segment of society on 
others (Larzelere, 1993). Respect for minority rights is an extremely important 
principle. However, valid and important principles often contradict other valid 
and important principles, for example, "A stitch in time saves nine," and "Haste 
makes waste." Many things need to be considered when choosing which applies in 
a given situation. The conflicting principle in this instance is that it is 
wrong to treat children in ways that might threaten their physical and mental 
health when there are equally effective methods that do not pose this risk. 
Although the evidence is not all in, there is enough to seek an accommodation 
between our commitment to individual freedom and our commitment to the well being 
of children and of society. In Sweden, for example, there is no penalty for 
spanking. Instead, the law assumes that when parents spank, it is because they 
are having trouble controlling a child. The Swedes try to help such parents 
achieve the kind of control that children need and therefore make spanking 
unnecessary. This does not impose on peoples values because even parents who 
approve of spanking because of their religious beliefs or ethnic culture, prefer 
that it never be necessary. 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 13 



14 



REFERFNCES 



Alvy, Kirby T. and Marilyn Marigna. 1987. Effective Black Parenting. Studio 

City, CA: Center For the Improvement of Child Caring. 
Bavolek, Stephen J. and others. 1983 to 1992. The Nurturing Programs. Park City 

Utah: Family Development Resources. 
Calvert, Robert. 1974. "Criminal and Civil Liability in Husband-Wife Assaults." 

Chapter 9 in Violence in the Family , edited by Suzanne K. Steinmetz and 

Murray A. Straus. NY: Harper and Row. 
Crozier, Jill and Roger C. Katz. 1979. "Social Learning Treatment of Child 

Abuse." Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Psychiatry . 10:213-220. 
Day, Dan E. and Mark W. Roberts. 1983. H An analysis of the physical punishment 

component of a parent training program." Journal of Abnormal Cftljd 

Psychology . 11(1) : 141-152. 
Deley, W. (1988). Physical punishment of children: Sweden and the USA. Journal 

of Comparative Family Studies . 19(3), 419-431. 
Dinkmeyer Sr., Don and Gary D. McKay. 1989. Systematic Training for Effective 

Parenting . Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. 
Gelles, Richard J and Straus, Murray A. 1988. Intimate violence. Simon & 

Schuster. 

Gordon, T. 1975. Parent Effectiveness Training . New York, NY: New American 
Library. 

Haeuser, Adrienne Ahlgren. 1990. "Banning parental use of physical punishment: 

Success in Sweden." Presented at 8th Internal mal Congress on Child Abuse 

and Neglect, Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany, September 2-6, 1990. 
Higgins, E. Tory and John A. Bargh. 1987. "Social Cognitions and Social 

Perception." Annual Review of Psychology . 38:369-425. 
Hirschi, Travis. 1969. The Causes of Delinquency . Berkeley and Los Angeles: 

University of California Press. 
Kadushin, Alfred and Judith A. Martin. 1981. Child Abuse: An Interactional 

Event . New York: Columbia University Press. 
Larzelere, Robert E. 1986. "Moderate spanking: Model or deterrent of children's 

aggression in the family?" Journal of Family Violence. 1(1): 27-36. 
Larzelere, Robert E. In press. "Empirically justified uses of spanking: Toward 

a discriminating view of corporal punishment." Journal of Psychology and 

Theology . 

Larzelere, Robert E. 1993. "Should corporal punishment by parents be considered 
abusive - No" In Eileen Gambrill and Mary Ann Mason, editors, Children a ^d 
Adolescents: Controversial Issues . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Mattson, Margaret E. , Earl S. Pollack and Joseph W. Cullen. 1987. "What Are the 
Odds that Smoking Will Kill You?" American Journal of Public Health. 
77(4):425-431. 

Newson, John and Elizabeth Newson. 1963. Patterns Of Infant Care in an Urban 

Community . Baltimore: Penguin Books. 
Patterson, Gerald R. 1982. "A Social Learning Approach to Family Intervention: 

III." Coercive Family Process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. 
Rosemond, John K. 1981. £arent Po wer. A Common Sens e Approach to Raising; Your. 

Children in the 80' s . Charlotte, NC: East Woods Press. 
Sears, Robert R. , Eleanor C. Maccoby and Harry Levin. 1957. fatterp? of Child 

Rearing . Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company. 
Stern, Daniel. 1977, Ejrst Relationship. Mother and Infant. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press. 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 14 



Straus, Murray A. 1991. "Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of 
Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood. H Social Problems 
38(2): 101-123. 

Straus, Murray A. 1993. "Corporal Punishment of Children and Depression and 
Suicide in Adulthood." In Joan McCord, (Ed.), Coercion and Punishment in 
Long Term Perspective . New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Straus, Murray A. and Richard J. Gelles. 1990. Physical Violence In American 
Families: Risk Factors And Adaptations to Violence In 8.145 Families . New 
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 

Straus, Murray A. and Holley S. Gimpel. 1992. "Corporal Punishment by Parents 
and Economic Achievement: A Theoretical Model and Some Preliminary 
Empirical Data. H Paper presented at the 1992 meeting of the American 
Sociological Association. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, 
University of New Hampshire. 

Straus, Murray A*, Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. 1980. Behind 
Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family . New York: Doubleday/Anchor . 

Tannatt, Lupita Montoya and Kirby T. Alvy. 1989. Los Ninos Blen Educados 
Program „ Studio City, CA: Center For the Improvement of Child Caring. 

Webster-Stratton, Carolyn. 1990. "Enhancing the effectiveness of self- 
administered videotape parent training for families with conduct-problem 
children." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology . 18(5) :479-492. 

Webster-Stratton, Carolyn, Mary Kolpacoff and Terri Hollinsworth. 1988. "Self- 
administered videotape therapy for families with conduct -problem children: 
Comparison with two cost-effective treatments and a control group." Journal 
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 56(4) : 558-566 . 



CPll\CPll.P,4Marchl993, Page 15 

16 



FIG.1 ASSAULTS ON SPOUSE BY AMOUNT 
OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT AS A CHILD 



r 

FIG 2. DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS 
BY CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BY MOTHER 




Fig 3. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND Fig 4. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND 

CHILD AGGRESSION, CONTROLLING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONSCIENCE 

IGNORING CHILD'S AGGRESSION 



35 

50 j 1 




LOW HIGH . LOW HIGH 



CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 

SUM A S.*.t « 4 TV 1 1 KA*M twtttH TM 1M